"Living Tradition: Economic Development and Decentralization Policies in Eighteenth-Century China"

Author: Gao Wangling
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-08-01
Features: I have many disagreements with Professor Fei Zhengqing, but he once told me, "By thoroughly researching a localized issue, you can then apply the insights to other problems and gain a unique perspective." Now, seeing your research on China's traditional agrarian policies, I deeply feel this. You argue that Chinese history has its own foundation and should not be simply labeled as a "capitalist" (a temporary fix), which deserves deep reflection and benefit for many scholars and readers. As for your reference to my book "Why History Developed as It Did," advocating for its approach is particularly meaningful. The first step is to misunderstand the problem, which I am especially grateful for. —Letter from Historian Huang Renyu to the author
This book examines the economic development and government policies of 18th-century China, arguing that 20th-century policies have continuity with those of the 18th century. This approach breaks down the binary opposition between tradition and modernity and proposes the concept of the "living tradition." The book is divided into three parts: Part one discusses Qing-era agricultural development policies, the second explores the expansion of government authority, and the third delves into "industrial" policies and related issues.
The book is divided into three parts. Part one discusses Qing-era agricultural development policies, examining how the Qing people proposed a set of economic development policies to address population issues, what their content was, how they were implemented, and what effects they had. The study of policy is a relatively new field in historical research. Past scholars have studied "reclaiming wasteland" policies in the early years of many dynasties. This book aims to answer whether traditional policies had any impact on economic development during peaceful periods after the so-called "reclaiming wasteland" or "recovery" phases. If they did, what was their nature? Or we could ask the other way around: Is economic development and its policy issues only a "modern" problem? Or is the history in between merely a "rupture"?